On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jan 12, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Shumon Huque <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On the "_smtp-client" label choice, I had originally used just "_smtp", > but > > a colleague more plugged into IANA service name registration procedures > > advised me that I should choose a different client specific label. The > > "_smtp" label is a server side label with an associated server side port, > > and that reusing that label for a client identifier would elicit > objections. > > > > The reason I talked you out of it, is that I wanted the query-domain for > client TLSA records to be the same as the SRV-ID. Injecting a sub-domain > makes it more difficult to use the names in question if SRV-ID is > what's in the certificate. > > Using the SRV-ID as the query domains is not an absolute requirement, but > it is a simplification that should not be discard too lightly. Trade-off > judgement call... > Ah yes, thanks for reminding me. I agree this is a useful rationale for keeping the form the way that it is. -- Shumon Huque
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
